Killmer 1

The Everpresent Now

One of the oldest questions in both metaphysical and scientific inquiry is

time: what is it? Is it even real, or is it simply a patterned interpretation humans
have placed upon world events in their never ending quest to understand their
environment? The answer is not clear, and it is possible to develop a coherent
ontology in either direction. Saint Augustine concluded in the fifth century that
time doesnt really exist outside the mind. In the 1700s Sir Isaac Newton not only
concluded that time was real, but that it was absolute completely independent
of physical processes. In the twentieth century Albert Einsteins theories of
Special and General Relativity seemed to implicate both the reality and the
unreality of time. Today, the questions philosophers and scientists ask about time
have gotten more complex, but we are still as far from general consensus as any
of our predecessors. Nevertheless, we cannot take a non-partisan path. Each of
us must choose what to believe about the fundamental nature of time, if only
because we have no choice but to live according to the consequences the mere
concept of time has had on our society, our species. In choosing whether or not
to hold time as a real feature of the universe, we must first consider the
manifestation of that which we call time. Only from a place of understanding of
what time is and is not, can we make a rational ontological decision to
countenance time, or to dismiss it as construct of the overactive imagination of
humanity. Though it is vain to hope to achieve what the greatest minds of all

Killmer 2

(time) did not, by standing on their shoulders it is possible to come to hold a

defensible ontology about the nature of time.

Let us begin by understanding the position of the time skeptic, specifically

the argument put forth by J.E. McTaggart in his essay Time (an excerpt from The
Nature of Existence). McTaggart distinguishes two different ways to understand
and approach time. The first, his A-series, is the line which runs from the far
past through the near past to the present, and from the present through the near
future to the far future, (McTaggart, 117). The second, his B-series, deals with
events being earlier or later, with respect to some other event. McTaggart points
out that the A-series is the way humans observe the passage of time the
continual change of future to present, present to past. Indeed, Time is often
referred to as an arrow, a fixed order of events and event relations, as they
pertain to the series of changes that is intrinsic to the nature of existence.
Experience teaches us that these changes can only occur in one direction
that is, one cannot travel back to last Tuesday and take the car in for
maintenance before it blows the gasket it blew last Wednesday,
or more immediately, one cannot un fry an egg. It is this singular momentum to
which we refer to when we speak of the "passage" of time. Without this process,
there could be no change in the universe. The B-series on the other hand,
reflects events themselves, and they appear as dots on a timeline. The B-series
cannot incorporate change, it can only describe relations of events Augustines
troubles with time were before Newtons, and McTaggarts after both Augustine
and Newton. Since change can only be accounted for by A-series time, and the

Killmer 3

B-series is necessary to account for the relational properties of the tenses (past,
present, future) inherent in the A-series, McTaggart concludes (modally) BA.
Now, here is where McTaggart attempts to jettison the reality of time. In the Bseries, relations of past, present, and future are incompatible; once an event
is past, is cannot be present or future. Yet in the A-series, every event contains
all three properties what was future, is present, becomes past. To illustrate this,
despite the fact that the American Revolution is in the past for us, it still retains its
relation of the future tense to, say, the settlers who arrived on this continent on
the Mayflower. McTaggart holds these consequences to be logically
incompatible, and concludes that time is unreal.
McTaggarts argument against time is not the only one of its sort, but it is
the one that continues to persist in philosophical discussion, so we will allow it to
stand as vanguard for the time-skeptic position. Now, let us turn to the
contemporary understanding of time as it stands in the field of physics. Einsteins
general theory of relativity revolutionized physics because of what it did with time.
On old, Newtonian models, time was a measurement, a description applied to
three-dimensional space in order to make sense of it. Under General Relativity,
however, space and time are not two separate entities. Instead, there is a single
mathematical formula for dealing with a single entity: spacetime. Spacetime is
simply a way of saying that we do not live in three dimensions, but rather in four.
Time and space, according to the best contemporary definition, are
fundamentally one.

Killmer 4

This new way of understanding time seems to provide the killshot for any
brand of time-skepticism not prepared to discountenance the reality of space.
Unfortunately, however, spacetime doesnt end the debate, it simply makes it
more focused and raises the stakes. Familiar problems begin to arise when we
look at some of the implications of Einsteins earlier work, Special Relativity.
Under special relativity, time is relative to an observers position. This
mathematical fact can ultimately lead to a phenomenon called observer
dependency. It is very difficult to describe without animated diagrams, but what it
boils down to is this: one spacetime event can be observed by two observers as
having different timeline relations. The classic example is of a light cone,
extending outward through spacetime. At a certain distance from the source of
the light cone are two reflectors, which will flash once the light from the cones
hits them. Suppose observer one is in such a position that both reflectors flash
simultaneously. Meanwhile, observer two is moving, relative to observer one, and
he witnesses two distinct flashes, one occurring before the other. Another
example is the well known fact that when one looks into the sky at night and sees
start, what is actually seen is the light that was emitted from those stars hundreds
or thousands of years ago. The now of witnessing a star is not the now relative to
the star itself. Now, the phenomenon of observer dependency only occurs at cast
distances (like the light-years between earth and the stars in the night sky) and
mind-boggling speeds, but what is important is that it does occur. This shows,
unequivocally, that time relations are not fundamentally the way humans
perceive them to be.

Killmer 5

We now find ourselves exactly in the same place McTaggart wound up.
Science shows us that on event can simultaneously be present, past, and future,
but experience dogmatically insists that it cannot (note, this isnt the semantic
incompatibility of McTaggart, this is literal temporal uncertainty and duality we are
now dealing with). If we accept Einsteins theories (and all they have done for
physics), we must somehow reconcile these two incompatible views. This will
only be possible if we can show that there is actually no contradiction.

We must find a way to logically conceive of four-dimensional spacetime

existence that is compatible with our experience as beings locked into threedimensional perception. The mathematical formulas of special relativity allow for
the mathematically erudite to account for it (we are not trapped in the third
dimension, we just never change reference frames relative to the earth, and its
low speed of 67,000 miles per hour), but they do little to explain the discrepancy
between the actual state of affairs in the universe, and the human
perception/experience of them.

Let us begin this reconciliation by examining the consequences of time as

a dimension. Just as physical entities extend along three axes, time has been
nominated as the fourth axis along which things extend. The implications of this
are far reaching indeed. Consider the effect this fact would have on living things:
the entirety of a creature's life span would extend out in a necessarily physical
manner, for spacetime is a single entity with the embryo/infant at one end, and
the final breath at the other. This position seems a candidate, because all of the

Killmer 6

aspects of an individual exist at one time or another, and yet we find it impossible
to pinpoint any moment of change, any specific transition. A person can look in
the mirror everyday they are alive, but there will be no day marking the difference
between childhood and adolescence, adolescence and adulthood. If the
individual is understood to be extending through time in the same way he or she
extends through space, then four dimensional time centipedes seem to be as a
viable a description as any for what it means to exist in time. If we consider time
as a dimension, and accept the logical consequence of four dimensional entities
rather than three dimensional ones, then we must rectify our experience of time
as the eternal present, with a rapidly encroaching future receding into past. The
two can be reconciled if and only if we adopt a similar approach to McTaggart,
and develop two complementary understandings of time. The first, obviously, is
time as dimension which we will call D time, to alleviate any potential confusion
with McTaggart's times and the second is time as force F time.

Before these new terms can do any meditative work we must elaborate
upon them. The dimensional aspect of time should already be firmly in mind, so
let us now define what we shall mean by time as a force. Just as the laws of
physics keep us all firmly situated on the ground and our flying machines aloft,
and just as the laws of thermodynamics keep our sun ignited and our
atmosphere temperate, suppose time is an immutable law of the universe
(probably based on some form of mathematics that would give one such as
myself an aneurysm) that is constantly acting on us, keeping us firmly
rooted in the now. This account incorporates the change of times arrow, but it

Killmer 7

also states another fundamental fact about time, namely that time is more than
just relations of entities, but the actual instantiation of the entities themselves
time is acting upon.

F time is the experience of the existing within a fourth dimension. Perhaps

the analogy is a bit rough, but liken the two forms of time to a carnival ride,
the Gravitron. The Gravitron is a giant top, which passengers enter and lean
against the wall. Once the ride starts, the top begins to spin, until gravity and
centrifugal force become so strong inside the ride, that the passengers are not
only held in place free of restraints, but an experienced rider can actually walk on
the walls, perpendicular to the ground and gravity's usual pull. If we liken D time
to the gravity outside the ride, and F time to the gravity inside the ride, we can
see one in the same force, seemingly in self opposition, actually working in
harmony to provide the experience of gravity from an altered perspective. Under
normal circumstances, we are unaware of gravity's effect on us, it is just part of
the nature of existence. When gravity is manipulated, not only is the experience
different, but we're acutely aware of the force acting upon us. Similarly, In D time
existence, we would be unaware of time passing as it would not be passing,
although it would still be intrinsic to the fabric of existence. This is why we must
appeal to some force, some palpable tangent line that remains nevertheless
intangible and elusive. This is F time. It is only through the application of F time
that any experience whatsoever would be possible for true and literal fourdimensional beings. We might take this one step further, by noting the F times
function of experientially solidifying the present implies D time in that there must

Killmer 8

be more than one time slice option to solidify this present, versus the
instantiated present of 1796, say.

If we did not have the necessarily literal qualities of a fourth dimension of

existence, we would not require any such postulation as F time. However, our
best science and mathematics shows us that all time slices are equally real, and
at least have the potential to simultaneously manifest under special
circumstances. It is not the impossibility of experiencing the simultaneity of the
past and future as a self-relative concurrent present that causes us to cry out in
ontological pain, however. Rather, it is the fact that humans seem to be
hardwired to experience the universe in three dimensions, to observe a singular
direction to times arrow that causes us to demand rectification of the reality of
being in time with the reality of being and time.

There are several objections that can arise in response to this argument,
and we shall now attempt to address some of them. First, it may be said that the
consequences of special relativity do not prove that all time slices are equally
real, but rather that they are equally unreal. If an event can (and does) contain
incompatible properties of past, present, and future, then the properties must not
be real. This is an acceptable point to make, since this argument hinges upon the
fact that humans do not have an accurate perception of the state of affairs within
the universe. Past, present, and future are concepts born of this faulty
cognitive apprehension, and thusly are likely flawed themselves as linguistic
constructs. This is one place where an alternate ontology can form and thrive.

Killmer 9

However, even if we accept time as unreal, we must still account for the
discrepancy between our perception of events and their indeterminate
manifestation.

Another possible objection is that the mathematics clear up any hazy

aspects of time. Calculus and the mathematics of closed infinities allow us to
consistently predict an events location in spacetime, and there is no need for
anything else. This may also be true, at least for some. Science, the great
normative institution, does not require the same kinds of explanations as
metaphysicians require of their work. It is our contention that the ability to predict
is not the same as the ability to understand, and it is this latter form of
comprehension to which we aspire. Science can continue forward with the ability
to predict and plot non-Euclidean graphs, but the lay mind is left in seizure.

Finally, it may be a source of disdain, or even a reason for flat-out

rejection, that this argument does not contain or appeal to any of the formulas of
Special or General Relativity. It is openly admitted that the graces of Calculus are
lost on this philosopher. Even if the logic contained herein is correct, this
argument does not prove it. To this camp of naysayers, it should be pointed out
that it was never to prove anything, only to make sense of it. Many scientific
discussions and publications of the last decade have become increasingly more
geared towards an audience that only wishes to make sense of a subject they
find intriguing. The specifics are lost on such audiences. This philosopher is a
member of those audiences, and this discussion is meant as a contribution, a

Killmer 10

drop of rain into an ocean. If it happens to be that the logical constructs which
have been erected here turn out to warrant further consideration by the
community at large, it will necessarily fall to another philosopher or scientist to
provide the equations and proofs. For now this is enough.

Science has granted us D (time). Since we understand F (time) to be

necessary to experience an instantiated present under D, and our experience as
beings that experience an instantiated present, we can conclude F. The course
of this argument has shown time to be a mathematical certainty, and has
attempted to provide an ontological framework for understanding what it means
to exist in time. There are places where contention may be raised, and there is
no clear winner in these debates. This is why the subject of the reality of time
continues to be pertinent. Despite the fact that this argument does not appeal to
higher mathematics for its evidence, it stands as a logical progression of ideas
which allows the individual to not only make sense of, but to come to terms with
what it means to be a four-dimensional being. Res ipsa loquitur.

Killmer 11

Bibliography
Callender, Craig, and Ralph Edney. Time: a graphic guide. 2010. London: Icon
Books Ltd., 2010. Print.
McTaggart, J.E.. "Time: An Excerpt from The Nature of Existence." Trans.
Array Metaphysics: the big questions. second. Malden: Blackwell, 2010.
117-123. Print.